[at-l] Kennebec Bridge

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

ellen at clinic.net wrote:
>That's why I responded to TJ's criticism. It's not useful to nitpick 
>decisions
>by trail volunteers without at least finding out the facts behind the 
>decision.

It's even less useful to attack those who question decisions - particularly 
if you have no additional facts.
Do you?


>Volunteers willing to take responsibility for deciding such matters are
>increasingly hard to find. Gratuitous slams in an internet forum aren't
>constructive, regardless of what Jim thinks.

Gratuitous slams?  Oh, well --- if you believe MATC is a "sacred cow", you 
might think that.  But keep in mind that I've spent a lot of years doing 
really terrible things to other people's "sacred cows".  They don't impress 
me.  And they taste good  :-))

Blind trust and gratuitous dismissal of questions are even less 
constructive.  How do you think Enron, Worldcom and Global Crossings (among 
others) got in trouble?  There's ALWAYS good reason to question - and to get 
the facts instead of someone's unsupported opinion.  One can make a very 
good case for simple laziness being the "Original Sin".  And either 
"assuming" the answers to questions or gratuitously "assuming" the 
invalidity of questions - is just laziness (i.e. - the unwillingness to 
expend the energy to determine the facts).

In any case, we'll all see how they fulfill the contract this year, won't 
we?

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus